Hey Morningsong,

Just a thought.

Your god, according to your book, is omnipotent and omniscient, COULDN'T HIS WORD EVOLVE!!!
Isn't that conceivable???

Just a hint, 99,997% of all christians accept that god's word evolves, and accept evolution micro, macro and all!!!

Cher 'Eljay',

So far, your comments have shown clear confusion between
... YOUR personnal opinion,
... or anyone else's for that matter,
... including creationists who might happen to be scientists,

AND,

... the POSITION OF THE SCIENCE as expressed by the few whom are publicly recognized as the 'CREDIBLE EXPERTS' representing the scientific community position, and the CREDIBLE EXPERTS from the creationist side, presenting or NOT PRESENTING scientifically accepted or newly acceptable proof (if there were such), about their respextive claims in this 'evo-crea' debate.

That was the point of my earlier post 'eljay', that I repeat here. It will be kind of difficult to explore this further if you keep missing the point altogether.

Whatever you or I would have to say about our personnal research, our personnal diplomas and our personnal convictions, would be totally impertinent and missing the point of this exchange altogether.

You see 'ELJAY', neither you nor I have been invited to present the position 'for' or 'against' the evolution and creation sides in front of the numerous judicial hearings that have taken place in the past couple of decades (past hundred years, understandably we couldn't have anyway).

Some people in both camps are publically credible and known out there as the one's representing their respective camp.

They are the ones whom are instrumental in forging the infamous 'World View' you refer to often lately, or generally accepted consensus, giving us, mere mortals, a particular reality, or THE world view against which all other world views are measured, whether one agrees with it or not.

And you see 'Eljay',
... when it comes to your legitimate right to 'believe' in the 'bible-inerrant' notions of creationism,
... and however much you might not agree with the theory of evolution, because YOU are not personnally convinced with the evidence of this particular 'world view',
... the scientific and judicial experts on the other hand, after more than 100 years of hearings, where claims against evolution have been presented, and yet none of these CREATIONIST CLAIMS HAVE EVER BEEN PRESENTED WITH ANY SCIENTIFIC FACT THAT MIGHT HAVE CAST AS MUCH OF A SHADOW ON THE PROOF OF THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION.

Ironically, fundamentalist-creationists are reinforcing the reality, or 'Meta World View' of the Theory of Evolution with their repeated and endlessly unsubstantiated claims:
'... that evolution is false!!! ...'

Very much like, '... what doesn't kill you, makes you stronger ...' (an evolution based evidence. This evolution reality is everywhere!!!)

So that leaves us with a false debate so far, where false claims have been made and new unsubstantiated claims are peeking, without ever impacting reality,

FROM A JUDICIAL PERSPECTIVES :

... where 'creationism' has been judged UNCONSTITUTIONAL by the SUPREME COURT,

OR FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF SCIENCE

... which has NEVER been presented with any form of testable proof that would invalidate the theory of evolution.

The fundamentalists-creationists may never quit.

That is their constitutionally protected freeomof religion and freedom of speech privilege.

But the debate has been relegated to a stricly 'personnal belief' arena.

Whether yours, mine or the creationist whom happens to hold a science degree, personnal beliefs or opinions alone, whatever the mass, will never change the 'Meta World View' or consensus on reality.

The Meta World View once was that we existed on an earth centric universe, again out of a bible-inerrancy fundamentalist perspective.

Of course the reality of our universe(s) is not bible-inerrant today, in spite the legitimate belief of some die-hards.

So it is with Evolution. The Meta World View or reality we live within today is clearly 'evolutionary', in spite of a few 'bible-innerant' believers, whom hold onto a 'bible-inerrant human being centric' exclusive subordinated or junior world view, that is both scientifcally unproven, and judicially unconstitutional (creationism in schools).

Is the point clearer with this additionnal information 'ELjay'?

I would appreciate if you could respond to the point made here, in a specific manner:

'... credible expert opinion, and scientifically accepted theories-proof,
... shaping judicial reality and impacting a 'meta world view', or consensus on reality,
... as opposed to personnal opinions and beliefs impacting only one's view, but not the consensus on reality.'

0,00262% of the world's christian population, arguing as lound as they could,
... WILL NOT A WORLD REALITY GIVE!!!

Morningsong,

One's credibility very much depends on the credibility of its information source.

I am sure you are able to understand that no one can expect to argue, and make a point with others, hoping to reach any form of consensus, by simple throwing around:

'... you've got to believe me, because what I say is true, because that's what it says is the bible, and the bible is true, because I believe it is true, and I also believe that nothing is AS TRUE, so evolution is WRONG because it contradicts the bible, which I think is true...!!!'

I hope that you would agree that any circular argument have absolutely no credibility whatsoever in a conversation which seeks to establish what is more likely to be true about the reality of our naturally observable condition.

That kind of natural and pragmatically observable reality requires that one founds one's arguments on a solid series of observable and testable facts, which when presented to 'peers' for their review, can be tested and validated by them (no force, nor faith required, JUST TESTABLE FACTS), such that after testing, all reach the same conclusion (consensus).

In a short paragraph, you have here what could approximately point to the scientific method, where the CREDIBILITY OF THE INFORMATION AND THE APPROACH IN TREATING IT (in accordance wioth the scientific approch) ARE TANTAMOUNT.

Resorting to 'apologetics-fundamentalist-bible- inerrancy-exclusive' information sources might be considered a credible source amongst fundamentalists having a 'funadamentalistic' conversation about their faith, but it is totally impertinent, and incoherent when it comes to the scientific arena.

It would be like someonme claiming that his/her Washington politics trusted reference and information source was Saun Hannity!!! Can't get any clearer than that :
NO HOPE FOR CREDIBILITY EVER!!!

You see Morningsong, whether you and your apologetic-fundamentalist-bible-inerrancy-exclusive friends 'BELIEVE' otherwise, the theory of evolution is a product of the scientific method, NOT OF THE BELIEF DOMAIN.

Scientifically testable observations of nature is teh theory of evolution's own genetic code if you will. And that code is incompatible with the 'religious fundamentalist bible inerrancy exclusive' genetic code.

In other words Morningsong, there is no use trying to force evolution to mate with 'bible-inerrancy fundamentalism', its NEVER naturally going to make a 'bible inerrancy' correct baby!!! THE TWO CODES ARE EVOLUTION-PROOVEN INCOMPATIBLE.

That by the way Morningsong, comes from understanding some of the most basic and obvious FACTS about the theory of evolution!!!

Evolution, if you are going to have any credibility arguing for or against it, belongs entirely to the scientific arena, requiring scientific arguments, defended in accordance with the scientific method inside a fact testable peer review structure.

There is no such 'creationist-apologetics-fundamentalist' peer reviewed case, and therefore no scientifically coherent argument to be made for that side of the equation.

When your creationists-apologetic fundamentalist friends accept that simple FACT OF LIFE, and start presenting testable and verifiable arguments to their scientific PEERS for review, and that the scientific peers, and your friends come to the same conclusion, then and only then will the 'creationist' dogmatic argument will have transformed into a credible scientific argument.

But as you often say yourself Morningsong:

'... Never going to happen ...'

'YouTube',

Here are the links : the full version, and the experts: chromose #2.

Full
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty1Bo6GmPqM&feature=related

Chromosone #2 excerpt
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXdQRvSdLAs&feature=related

I suspect you would appreciate a good portion of the material from Ken Miller.

I thought I would jump in on this one since it appears that you have caught the post I wrote, addressing that 'intreresting' apologetic comeback line.

There is only evolution 'eljay'. And it covers the ('Good-God') Micro just as much as the ('Evil-Satan') Macro!!!

Go back a few, and read my post on tht point.

Morningsong,

You are a good and sweet person. I mean that sincerely.

But you are proselytizing as though the thing was going out of style.

You are no longer expressing your opinion, or inviting other posters to share views on this all so run topic. It would still be your privilege to invite posters to share views, YET AGAIN ON THIS WORN OUT TOPIC.

But that is not what you are doing here.

You are proselytizing. Besides not being cool at all, IT'S STRICTLY AGAINST THE RULES OF THIS FORUM.

Have 'trust' in your 'faith' for yourself Morningsong, and allow the fact that while you personnally believe in a god created human, there are different factual realities out there that have no association whatsoever with the domain of beliefs, and no link with with YOUR PERSONNAL faith.

Believe as you wish 'morningsong', and let go, let god with the rest!!!

Proselytizing, besides being strictly against forum rules, simply infuriates the very people you are intending to 'turn around'.

Respectfully.

Well 'Krimsa',

the 'they' we are talking about here are the star experts of the creationist side of the debate.

So it gets better than just '... they don't have an argument!!!....'

When the STAR EXPERTS of a given side of debate do not have a counter argument, while presenting in front of judicial hearing whose mandate it is to make sense of the topic, and render a legal verdict, THAT'S THE END OF THE LINE, so to speak.

THERE IS NO SCIENTIFICALLY DEFENDABLE ARGUMENT AGAINST THE FUSION OF CHROMOSONE #2, PERIOD!!!

With all due respect 'eljay',

I think you completely missed the point of the video.

See I would never pass myself as an expert whom could offer an expert opinion on the subject of evolution, or a whole lot of other subjects we could choose to debate on these forums.

Likewise, I wouldn't think for one moment that you would dare pass yourself as an 'expert', whose personnal opinion could be offered on these forums, with the authority of a credible 'expert'.

If that were the case, we would both be very busy delivering our expert speeches, and presenting our expert opinions in front of numerous court hearings across the country on this hot SOCIAL topic.

In short, my personnal opinion, or your personnal opinion matter very little in the realm of moving world concensus.

That you or I are convinced or not about an issue, changes absolutely nothing in establishing world concensus.

That is why I provided the Ken Miller link. The video explains in great detail, the state of US consensus with respect to 'creationism'. I warned you that it gave a summary of a recent 'down' verdict of a state court (if you wish I'll get it for you, along a long list of other 'down' verdicts from other state courts, as well as the Supreme Court 'down' judgment judging 'creationism' unconstitutional.

At that very conference where Ken Miller (a devout christian) spoke, they had been planning a debate between the Evolution side (Ken Miller), and the Creationist side.

I can't put names of the creationist guest experts because they never showed up.

Worse, they cancelled at the last minute, causing some degree of panick with the organizers, whom had turned to Miller, whom in turn graciously agreed to sum up the results of the hearings he and creationist experts had participated in.

Now, your opinion and my opinion do not matter much, as I pointed out earlier. But there are people out, whom are considered creationist experts, whom were invited to present their case AGAINST THE FUSION OF CHROMOSE #2, and THEIR OPINION WOULD HAVE MATTERED.

Unfortunately for your side, the creationist experts were at the hearings, they had been informed about the chromose #2 session months ahead, and yet, deliberately chose to present NO COUNTER ARGUMENT.

The hearings official offered them more time to provide a rebuttal! They replied that they had 'nothingm of peritnent substance' to add, or to counter with, on that specific topic.

That was the point I underlined to you before you viewed the video, and you missed it.

Your side's experts had NOTHING TO SAY, OR ADD.

That where it MIGHT HAVE MATTERED 'eljay'.

Not what you or I are convinced of, or refuse to believe in.

The STATE OF THE UNION on creationism, is that every efforts, whether through the scientific community, or the judicial sytem, are being debunked or judged INEPT TO BE TAUGHT IN SCHOOL AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

So, until the creationists experts come up with a rebuttal, or counter proposition that either the

...SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY

... or the JUDICIAL

can make sense of,

THE EVOLUTION ARGUMENT IN THE CASE OF CHROMOSONE #2, AND ANY OTHER EVOLUTION ARGUMENT OF YOUR CHOICE, STAND AS THE CURRENT SCIENTIFIC, AS WELL AS CONSTITUTIONAL REALITY OF THIS COUNTRY.


... and I understand and respect that your personnally are not convinced...

The '... they ...' ('how long have they been denouncing') you are referring to 'feral', are neither competent nor credible.

It is almost entirely poeple like you 'feral', US christian fundamentalists, whom represent 0,00262% of the WORLD'S CHRISTIAN POPULATION have been denouncing the Theory of Evolution with fanatical fervor since the late 1800's, coinciding with the emergence of Industrial age MODERNITY, and contradicting the verbatim of the bible.

As for the misleading comment about '... even taking back teaching it in schools...', you need to update your 'important information bank'.

Again, mostly bible inerrancy fundamentalists (0,00262%) have been running campaigns of disinformation in many school boards of several states, with the intent of forcing the teaching of creationism according to 'genesis' in science classes.

Over the last decade, all attempts from creationists have met unfavourable States Court rulings, declaring the intent unconstitutionnal, and thus prohibiting the teaching of creationism in schools.

It was followed with a recent unfavourable ruling from the Supreme Court, as all efforts deployed by the bible-inerrancy fundamentalists were found to be unconstitutional on several counts (google it and add it all to your already impressive bank of information).

So again, evolution is overwhelmingly accepted worldwide, and even 99,97% of world christians accept Darwin's legacy.

Only 0,00262%, an insignificant trace, persist in vain and unfounded evolution and science bashing.



You'll have to support this claim a bit better 'feral'. But heck, with this impressive bank of information you're sitting on, it should be a walk in the park for you.

The questions from most of those polls, are very tricky and deceptive. If you don't show the polls you are referring to, I'm afraid this comment amounts to 'pool room gossip'!!!



Not me 'feral', I can read right through you 'doll'!!! (I 'like' it so much when you call me doll, I figured you wouldn't mind I reciprocated).

You are misleading the people for whom you are performing your 'Effective Outreach Ministering', or better known as proselytizing.

Misinforming the good people whom are seeking objective and factual information, is dishonest.

My mother and father taught me from early on, to always give the fullest information, in the most honest manner possible, and trust those I pass the information onto, to come to the right decision, ... on their own term.

No proselytizing (big manipulative 'sales-job') required.




If you came to that conlusion, I would tell you that this was a very hasty conclusion worth your revisiting.
Lamarck deserves a whole lot better than '... full of it...', coming from you. Should you leave 1/1000th of the contribution Lamarck made to humanity, I'll make sure personnally, that nobody ever suggests you were '... full of it ...'!!! Until such a time though, you will need to work on your basic research skills.



I would make the same observation to you concerning Darwin, as I made to you concerning Lamarck.

As for both your comment '... both people don't hold water with me...', you just simply have no clue what you're talking about.

Concerning Darwin and the Giraffe, he was proven wrong alright.
But this had nothing to do with his theory of evolution, nor did it have anything to do with questionning whether or not the Giraffe had indeed evolved, but rather, it focused on the specific hypothesis Darwin made about the premise under which the giraffe's neck had evolved.

Darwin had originally speculated on the idea that natural selection chooses animals that are best able to feed on the highest treetops, where food is most abundant and competition minimal, to explain the evolution of the giraffe's neck.

But, low and behold, a novel alternative proposed by Simmons and Scheepers (1996) suggests that the increased neck length has a sexually selected origin.
Giraffe males fight for dominance over females by clubbing opponents with their massive heads and necks. This intrasexual combat is called “necking” through which larger-necked males gain the greatest access to estrous females and thus, have a greater contribution to the genetic makeup of the next generation.
The most recent explanation is most plausible since it provides better evidence for evolution.

That's what your research, from your extraordinary banks of formidable information, should have yielded.

Can hardly conclude with the '... full of it...', and '... don't hold water...' epithets you have misappropriated to Lamarck and Darwin.

As for applying those comments to EVOLUTION itself, not only does it not apply,
it is the complete opposite: discussing the exact hypothesis and premise under wich the neck of the giraffe evolved, implicitely CONFIRMS the evolution of the giraffe.

So you see what I mean 'feral', if you're not carefull nor rigorous with the research and the manner in which you understand or misunderstand the information you treat, you can easily become an accessory in misinforming and misleading trusting and unsuspecting people.

I trust you'll make every effort to put in the correction.

I hate to break it to you 'Feral', but your information sources lead you to make claims that are just, let's say ... profoundly misleading.

Speaking of Girafffe evolution, and suggesting that 'Darwin's hypothesis around that one was, as you put it ...

'... Darwin was blown up with is his theories...'

What do you imply with this rather 'nuanced' and graphic statement???

What Darwin's theories are you talking about???

What does your 'Darwin blown up' claim suggest about the evolution of the Giraffe???

Are you suggesting and willing to let people believe that the Giraffe did not evolve because as you put it '... Darwin was blown up with is theories...'???

Please answer these simple questions, and we will compare notes.

I trust our exchanges on this one alone will help forward this debate tremendously.

P.S.: I can't wait to be blown by your library of information!!!

'feral',

I feel for you!!!

You need to think, read, inform yourself from other sources than apologetics and creationist sites.

You're an intelligent person. You owe it to yoursef.

Get the information right before you throw out these totally inept, silly, and profoundly ignorant apologetics and creationists 'cut & paste' questions and answers.

It just doesn't honor the intelligent and articulate person you are, and it makes for a royal (or divine if you prefer) and confused mess of grossly misleading information.

And by the way, why don't you answer that simple question I asked you a few posts back about YOUR formidable claim that 'EVOLUTION' is absolutely correct on the one hand (micro), and yet not correct at all on the other (macro).

What material do YOU have to support that evolution IS ont he one hand, and ISN'T on the other hand.

Any scientifically credible and valid papers you could submit to us on that formidable claim???
Must be very fresh, 'cuzz I sure haven't come across any such evidence in the course of my research.

So you know that 'feral'?!?!?!

You have been pretending all this time, playing us all like an ol' fiddle!!!

So why all the questions???

Why all the threads asking for proof???

Why the insistence for every single transitional fossils???

Obviously YOU AGREE WITH EVOLUTION!!!

There is no greater 'PROOF' for The Theory of Evolution than the 'POPPYCOCK':

'... Princeton Faculty of biology, ''the macro evolution of the 'poppycock'; over 3 billion years of transitional fossils'. Univerity press, 1955.''

You, you, you ...

... funny theory of evolution fan, you!!!

That's right 'feral':

Evolution exists on a 'bible accommodating' hand (GOD-GOOD-micro),

But wait,

Evolution doesn't exist on another 'BIBLE OFFENSIVE' hand (SATAN-EVIL-macro).

Let's see, are there any 'faith-shopping onlookers' reading these posts right now???

If so, DO YOU ACTUALLY BUY 'FERAL's and her fundamentalist friends claim that evolution exists, but then again evolution doesn't exist???

Just curious!!!

At least 'krimsa', there is extraordinary EVOLUTION in our 'bible-exclusive-dogmatic-fundamentalists' position.

The list of defying creatures, representing their dogmatic resistance, is down to a mere 12 items!!!

12 items in the whole universe that the 0,00262% of fundamentalists are questionning!!!

If that is not EVOLUTION at work, I don't know what is!

I don't understand!!!

In one post, you write that you are on here exactly for that purpose, and here you suggest '... neener, neener...'

That's called a self-contradicting dilemma. Some people describe it as confusing two different 'truths', which in itself is a self-contradicting statement.

When you write that you are on mingle2 to do your 'effective outreach ministry', you can't claim on another post that you don't proselytize.

In the post above I'm giving an out to keep posting while respecting the rules (no prosetylizing), and respecting your beliefs 100%.

Just explain the self-contradicting claim that
you and your friends make, that EVOLUTION exists on the one hand, and that EVOLUTION doesn't exist on the other hand.

99,97% OF THE WORLD'S CHRISTIAN POPULATION ENDORSE THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION!!!

0,00262% representing the offsprings of a US exclusive 'protestantist fundamentalism' movement of the beginning of the 20th century, fanatically opposed to aspects of modernity which contradict a 'bible-exclusive' verbatim dogma, consider 'half' of evolution only, to be offensve to the bible, and therefore EVIL.

Think of it!!! 0,00262% of the world's population, mostly proselytizing in the US, dedicate their lives to the fabrication of misleading fallacies, such as GOD-GOOD 'micro evolution', and SATAN-EVIL 'macro evolution', STRICTLY TO ACCOMODATE THEIR BIBLE-VERBATIM-EXCLUISIVE DOGMA.

Their dogamtic fight isn't with
... non-christians,
... atheists,
... scientists,
... etc.,

Their fight is with 99,97% of the world's christian community.

That's
... the Pope and the catholics,
... the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Anglicans,
... the different leaders of the orthodox churches and their congregations,
... and the ovewrwhleming majority of protestants of a very large number of diverse congregations.

All those christians could ask the small 0,00262% group, probably all posting here on mingle2 :),

... how can you subscribe to EVOLUTION (micro) on the one hand, and yet fanatically call it EVIL on the other hand (macro)!!!

As 'krimsa' paraphrased a famous analogy,

... how can you (0,00262%), claim that you have no problem with the reality of traveling around YOUR block, but can NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, I REPEAT NEVER ACCEPT THE REALITY OF TRAVELING TO THE NEIGHBORING BLOCK, TRAVELING TO THE BLOCK ACROSS THE COUNTRY, OR EVEN THE BLOCK ACROSS THE PLANET?!!?!? Everyone does it, and yet you claim it doesn't exist!!!

That is a dangerous delusion!!!

NOt only that, the rest of the christian community, in an overwhleming proportion of 99,97%, is more than willing to give an 'evoluton RESTRICTION-free' passport, such that you can free yourself up, 'travel' without restrictions, and NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, I REPEAT NEVER, give up your christianity!!!

So, 0,00262%, stop asking for yet ANOTHER 'missing link' fossil, AND ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTION:

How do you explain scientifically
... to 99,97% of other christians,
... to the scientific community as a whole, and
... the overwhelming reality concensus of eveyday people

... that evolution exists on the one hand (GOd-GOOD-MICRO), and

... doesn't exist on the other hand (SATAN-EVIL-MACRO)???

You insist on bringing up the subject '0,00262%',
... than that is the only sane perspective to hold this debate.

Anyhing else is proselytizing of the worst kind (effective outreach ministering), or delusionally retrograde nostalgia!!!

You got that right doll!

An EXCEPTIONAL...

'effective outreach proselytizers'

... DEFYING CREATURE!!!

Well, at least we know that!!! NOTHING!!!

Don't we all feel a lot liter!

2xOOOPS!!!

oops!